4 ms·

The point of a motto like this is to provide guidance when there's no specific company guidance. When the company publicly says they will do business with Chin

• dragonwriter 5y ago
  The vague motto is not the issue; the detailed elucidation of the meaning in the code of content and the positive direction in the CoC (alleged to be, and this is consistent with the legal treatment of similar signed policy documents in employment law, a binding contract) to raise issues when either individual googlers at any level or the company as a whole seemed to be violating the policy as elucidated in that document are the issues. The specific direction to raise issues if the company as a whole appeared to be in violation cannot be reconciled with the idea that it did not apply to announced official company actions. And no one refused to do their job. The question is whether the things they were fired for doing were additional to, outside of, and inconsistent with their job or part of their job as specified in a binding contract with their employer.
  • q1w2 5y ago
    > or the company as a whole seemed to be violating the policy There is no requirement for a company to follow principles listed in the CoC. > And no one refused to do their job. They refused to stop doing things that were against the CoC, despite being told to do so, and being told that those activities were not consistent with the company's interpretation of Do No Evil. This case will be thrown out